Skipton MPPI question

catcollection · 12 January 2014 at 7:50PM

Hi All, I hope someone can help. I'll try to be as brief as possible. If any more info is required, I will provide as much as I can.

I recently took the plunge into the world of reclaiming any PPI that may have been mis-sold to me. It's early days yet but the first reply I've had back is from the Skipton BS regarding a mortgage agreement I had (jointly with my wife) with them from 1998 to 2004. It's a final decision quite obviously not in my favour and dated just 2 days after I sent the initial request for information.

If I may, I include a couple of quotes from the letter, as follows:

"Your mortgage with the Society was arranged by an introducer, (name, company and address of introducer and account number).

It was ultimately the responsibilty of ... to ensure that you were fully aware of the terms, conditions and exclusions that applied to the policy. Any concerns relating .... need to be referred directly to ... in order that the matter may be dealt with."

This paragraph is followed by advice regarding contacting FSCS. Then..

"The mortgage that you chose, with the help of your introducer, was conditional on one of three insurance products we were offering, House and Contents, Homeplan or Skipton Assured, being taken and maintained for five years."

I'm not trying to imply that MPPI wasn't required or a sensible thing to have, nor that it would not have been useful should our circumstances have changed significantly. The main question here is that my mortgage was conditional on us taking out one of the Skipton's insurance products (in this instance MPPI).

A look at the PPI Reclaiming FAQ section of this site shows the following>

'Was I mis-sold?' queries

I had PPI on a catalogue, overdraft, store card, car loan or credit card?
I was told to buy mortgage PPI, was it mis-sold? Yes, but mortgage PPI wasn't as commonly mis-sold, so it's less of an issue. Remember, good PPI protects your mortgage repayments in the event of accident, sickness or unemployment - see the ... guides for more.

Mortgage lenders can legitimately say that having PPI is a condition of allowing you a mortgage - but they aren't allowed to say it must be theirs.

So what, if any, are my options here? Should I write back to the Skipton, quoting a "rule" that outlines the above (in red) and ask them to reconsider their decision? If so, does anyone know where I can find the correct wording (ie, so and so legislation, section this, paragraph that)?

Should I contact the "introducer"? If so, has anybody got any ideas as to how I might go about this? He was just a small "one man band" business, not some multinational banking institution, does this make any difference?

Should I forward the details to the FOS (or FSCS if the introducer is not still trading) and see what they say?

As I said earlier, it's still early days but a rejection within two days of sending the letters out puts a cloud and a huge question mark over the whole thing. Any help will be most welcome and muchly appreciated. Thank you for your time in reading this and thanks in advance to anyone who can reply and/or help.

Regards, Dan.

dunstonh · 12 January 2014 at 9:24PM

I'm not trying to imply that MPPI wasn't required or a sensible thing to have

So, why did you complain?

The main question here is that my mortgage was conditional on us taking out one of the Skipton's insurance products (in this instance MPPI).

What evidence do you have to support that you were told it was compulsory?
Did you actually buy the Skipton product or did the broker arrange a different MPPI product?

Mortgage lenders can legitimately say that having PPI is a condition of allowing you a mortgage - but they aren't allowed to say it must be theirs.

That is actually only partly correct and it also only applies to today. Not historically. In 1998, it would not have been the case. Plus, lenders are allowed to insist on insurance but cannot force you to have theirs unless the mortgage deal (such as a special rate) requires the purchase of a cross sale product.

Skipton required you to have the insurance as part of the mortgage deal. That is allowed. So, your complaint was destined for failure with that complaint reason.

So what, if any, are my options here? Should I write back to the Skipton, quoting a "rule" that outlines the above (in red) and ask them to reconsider their decision? If so, does anyone know where I can find the correct wording (ie, so and so legislation, section this, paragraph that)?

No point. Skipton are correct.

Should I contact the "introducer"? If so, has anybody got any ideas as to how I might go about this? He was just a small "one man band" business, not some multinational banking institution, does this make any difference?

The vast majority of mortgage brokers did not become regulated for insurance until Jan 2005. So, they can reject it as being pre-regulation. Plus, what would your complaint to them be? If the lender says its needed as part of a packaged deal and you then bought that package knowing that and the insurance was suitable then the broker has done nothing wrong.

Should I forward the details to the FOS (or FSCS if the introducer is not still trading) and see what they say?

The FOS has no remit as its pre Jan 2005 (and not against the Skipton but the intermediary/broker - unlikely to be a member of the GISC). The FSCS can only consider sales made after Jan 2005 where the firm is no longer trading and there are no assets.

As I said earlier, it's still early days but a rejection within two days of sending the letters out puts a cloud and a huge question mark over the whole thing.

No question mark needed. It is a very easy rejection as your complaint is wrong. Sorry.

Insider101 · 12 January 2014 at 9:48PM

Did you actually make a complaint or just a request for info? And was their response a final decision letter or just a letter advising you that your policy was sold by a broker?

Whether it is a one man band or a big multinational makes no difference whatsoever. If you are complaining Mis-sale you complain to the seller I.e the broker.

As regards the thing about not being allowed to insist that you take THEIR PPI in order to obtain a mortgage offer, I believe there are rules to that effect nowadays, however, as Dunstonh says there were not at the time. They are also entitled to require you to take insurance with them in order to obtain a particular mortgage deal (maybe a 2% discounted rate for example). That's basically cross- selling and is just like any buy on get one half price type deal.

As regards the introducer, surely you know who he was and where he was based? Not that it matters anyway as he doesn't appear to have done anything wrong and even if he had it was pre- regulation hence he doesn't have to consider the complaint. Referral to FOS or FSCS would be useless, they can't either bearing in mind the date.

safestored4 · 12 January 2014 at 10:35PM

You say that the offer of the mortgage was conditional on taking out PPI but this is not true. The terms of the offer required you to take out one of three different insurance products and you were free to take out one of the other two and forego PPI or buy it elsewhere. To a layman it just looks as though you are trying to get on the PPI bus, but have got on the wrong one. Better luck with some of your other speculative ventures.

catcollection · 13 January 2014 at 8:43PM

Thanks to all for taking the time to read and respond.

It really wasn't a case of jumping on bandwagons, nor do I feel entitled to anything.

As I said in my original post, I sent out a few letters requesting information about any PPI policies I may have had. Elsewhere on this site I have seen many versions of "If you don't ask, you'll never know", so I thought I'd ask. In this case, I saw something in the Skipton's reply regarding the selling of PPI being a considering factor in the decision as to whether credit was given. I therefore asked you guys if I may have had any grounds for complaint. In this instance it appears not, once again thank you for your opinions and advice.

This PPI was one of three products offered by the lender which allowed us to take advantage of a reduced rate capped mortgage product. It just happens that one of the other two products available was unsuitable and we had made other arrangements for the remaining product, therefore PPI was the only product from the list of three that we could realistically consider.

I asked the question due to reading the part about same seller guidelines on the FAQ section.

Once again, thanks for the advice.

Regards, Dan.

Davie_Macsporran · 31 March 2017 at 1:16PM

Has anyone who was told they had to have Accident, Sickness or Unemployment (ASU) Insurance as a condition of obtaining a mortgage from Skipton, been successful in reclaiming PPI, despite stating to Skipton at the time that you did NOT need ANY part of such Insurance? I was told that I had to take out the Insurance otherwise I could not have that product - a discounted Mortgage. Any details of success would be appreciated.

[Deleted User] · 31 March 2017 at 1:29PM

If it was a condition of the mortgage, it would make no difference if you told them if wasn't.

dunstonh · 31 March 2017 at 3:04PM

I was told that I had to take out the Insurance otherwise I could not have that product - a discounted Mortgage.

Over the years, quite a few lenders ran special deals where a purchase of insurance was required to get that particular deal. That cross subsidy style arrangement was allowed then and still allowed today. If that is what you had then you cannot have been mis-sold.

Skipton MPPI question

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free